兒童對同儕言語挑釁之受傷與易怒敏感度：社會計量差異與發展差異

Children's Vulnerability and Inflammability to Peer Verbal Provocation: Sociometric and Developmental Differences

10.6129/CJP.2008.5001.04

葉北辰(Pei-Chen Yeh)；雷庚玲(Keng-Ling Lay)

先機式攻擊 ； 回應式攻擊 ； 同儕關係 ； 受傷敏感度 ； 易怒敏感度 ； proactive aggression ； reactive aggression ； peer relationship ； vulnerability ； inflammability

中華心理學刊

50卷1期（2008 / 03 / 01）

49 - 69

繁體中文

負向言語挑釁是國小學童間非常有效且常見的攻擊手段。本研究的目的為探討國小學童面對不同喜歡程度的同儕對其施以負向言語挑釁時，在受傷敏感度和易怒敏感度上的發展趨勢。性別差異；以及分別探究在先機式攻擊。回應式攻擊和被欺負三種不適應的同儕互動向度上分數高和低的國小學童對同儕施以負向言語的反應差異。總共有720位四年級與六年級國小學童接受施測。第一階段施測以社會提名法，請受試者選出班上最喜歡。最不喜歡。具先機式攻擊。回應式攻擊。及被欺負傾向的同學。第二階段則偽裝為另一實驗，以第一階段所提名的最喜歡與最不喜歡的同學為個人實驗刺激，利用假想故事情境，測量當不同施話者（喜歡或不喜歡的同學）說出不同言語刺激（中性或負向）時，國小學童的易怒敏感度（包括生氣與敵意歸因）與受傷敏感度（包括悲傷與自責歸因）。以全體受試者針對兩個依變項所分別進行之兩個「年級(2)×性別(2)×施話者(2)×言語內容(2)」之四因子變異數分析呈現，受傷敏感度和易怒敏感度會隨著年齡降低；兒童面對喜歡的人說負向言語受傷敏感度較高、面對不喜歡的人說負向言語則是易怒敏感度較高。而三個分別以先機式攻擊。回應式攻擊和被欺負分數高／低來分組的「組別(2)×施話者(2)×言語內容(2)」三因子變異數分析發現：先機式攻擊傾向高的學童受傷敏感度較對照組低，被欺負傾向高的學童受傷敏感度較對照組高；但是回應式攻擊傾向高的學童易怒敏感度並沒有如預期較對照組高。

When children enter middle childhood, mode of aggression becomes increasingly less physical. Instead, verbal aggression occurs frequently in peer interaction of elementary school students. The purpose of this research is to investigate, during middle and late childhood, the age, sex, and individual differences of the vulnerability and inflammability in response to peer verbal aggression delivered either by liked or disliked classmates. Vulnerability is measured by children's fear and self-blame in response to peer provocation. Inflammability is measured by children's anger and hostility attributions. Whitesell and Harter (1996) indicated that children respond with more intense and prolonged negative emotion if conflict situations involve best friends. Fabes, Eisenberg, Smith, and Murphy (1996), by contrast, demonstrated that children's responses to provocations by well liked peers are more controlled than is the case for anger provoked by peers who are not well liked. The first goal of this study thus is to compare children's response to verbal provocation enacted by liked versus disliked classmates. Selman and Byrne (1974) suggested that, from middle to late childhood, children move from being incapable of integrating self and other's perspectives to simultaneously considering mutual roles during interactions. Crick, Grotpeter, and Bigbee (2002) as well as Underwood, Coie, and Herbsman (1992) and Underwood, Hurley, Johanson, and Mosley (1999) suggested that older children are better at regulating their anger and distress. That is, older children are better both at understanding other's perspective and regulating one's own emotion. The second goal of this study thus is to test the hypothesis of milder vulnerability and inflammability for older children in response to peer verbal aggression. Previous research on the Social Information Processing (SIP) of proactive aggressors, reactive aggressors, and victimized children suggested that each type of children may react to peer conflict with different encoding, interpretation, response evaluation, and response enactment. Accordingly, the third goal of this study is to examine whether children with high reactive aggression tendency are more likely to be inflamed by both negative and neutral peer verbal provocation (Dodge & Coie, 1987; Crick & Dodge, 1996); whether those with high proactive aggression tendency, because of their emotional-callous traits (Frick et al., 2003; Kimonis et al., 2006), are less vulnerable and inflammable to verbal provocation; and whether those with high victimization tendency are more vulnerable and less inflammable while facing peer verbal provocation (Finnegan, Hodges, & Perry, 1998; Schwartz, Chang, & Farver, 2001). Eleven classes of fourth graders (189 males and 166 females) and eleven classes of sixth graders (190 males and 175 females) from the Metropolitan Taipei area participated in the two-stage study. During the first stage of data collection, information about each subject's liked and disliked classmates and the proactive aggressors, reactive aggressors, and victims in the class was collected through sociometrics. Results revealed that those who scored lower on social preference and those who scored higher on social impact were more likely to be nominated as proactive aggressors, reactive aggressors, or victims of aggression (all ps＜.01). During the second stage of data collection, each subject read hypothetical scenarios about receiving verbal aggressions and neutral verbal stimuli from the particular liked or disliked classmates that the child had nominated during the first stage. Subjects were to rate their fear, self-blame, anger, and hostility attribution in response to the scenarios. Concordant with Whitesell and Harter (1996), results demonstrated that fourth graders revealed higher vulnerability in response to negative verbal provocation delivered by liked as opposed to disliked peers (effect of ”liked vs. disliked peer x age” interaction on vulnerability: F(1, 499)=10.84, p＜.01). Contrary to Whitesell and Harter (1996), but concordant with Fabes et al. (1996), verbal aggression from disliked peers resulted in higher inflammability, F(1, 499)=371.57, p＜.001. Sixth graders were less inflammable to verbal aggression than their fourth grade counterparts, F(1, 499)=10.02, p＜.01. No sex differences were found in sixth graders' inflammability, but fourth grade boys' inflammability was significantly higher than girls, F(1, 499)=6.90, p＜.01. The above results indicate the development of children's emotional regulation and social information processing from the fourth to the sixth grade especially in boys. Children with high proactive-aggression tendency experienced lower vulnerability, F(1, 162)=14.89, p＜.01, and children with high victimization tendency experienced higher vulnerability F(1, 166)=8.11, p＜.01. upon being verbally provoked by peers, In addition, children with high victimization tendency responded to liked versus disliked peers' negative verbal provocation with less differentiated level of inflammability as compared with the non-victimized children (the effect of ”liked vs. disliked peers x victimization” interaction on inflammability : F(1, 166)=14.61, p＜.01). Contrary to the original hypothesis, children with high reactive-aggression tendency did not show higher inflammability in response to peer verbal aggression. The methodological and theoretical implications of the present findings were discussed.

1. Björkqvist, K.(1994).Sex differences in physical, verbal, and indirect aggression: A review of recent research.Sex Roles,30,177-188.
2. Borg, M. G(1998).The emotional reaction of school bullies and their victims.Educational Psychology,18,433-444.
3. Cillessen, A. H. N,van IJzendoorn, H W,van Lieshout, C. F. M,& Hartup, W. W(1992).Heterogeneity among peer-rejected boys: Subtypes and stabilities.Child Development,63,893-905.
4. Coie, J. D,Dodge, K. A,Coppotelli, H(1982).Dimensions and types of social status: A crossage perspective.Developmental Psychology,18,557-570.
5. Coie, J. D,Dodge, K. A,Terry, R,Wright, V.(1991).The role of aggression in peer relations: An analysis of aggression episodes in boys play groups.Child Development,62,812-826.
6. Craig, W. M(1998).The relationship among bullying, victimization, depression, anxiety, and aggression in elementary school children.Personality & Individual Difference,24,123-130.
7. Crick, N. R,Dodge, K. A(1996).Social informationprocessing mechanisms in reactive and proactive aggression.Child Development,67,993-1002.
8. Crick, N. R,Dodge, K. A(1994).A review and reformulation of social information-processing mechanisms in children`s social adjustment.Psychological Bulletin,115,74-101.
9. Crick, N. R,Grotpeter, J. K,Bigbee, M. A(2002).Relationally and physically aggressive children`s intent attributions and feelings of distress for relational and instrumental peer provocations.Child Development,73,1134-1142.
10. Dodge, K. A(1980).Social cognition and children`s aggressive behavior.Child Development,51,162-170.
11. Dodge, K. A.,Coie, J. D(1987).Social-informationprocessing factors in reactive and proactive aggression in children`s peer groups.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,53,1146-1158.
12. Dodge, K. A,Coie, J. D,Pettit, G. S,Price, J. M(1990).Peer status and aggression in boys` groups: Development and contextual analyses.Child Development,61,1289-1309.
13. Dodge, K. A,Frame, C. L(1982).Social cognitive biases and deficits in aggressive boys.Child Development,53,620-635.
14. Dodge, K. A,Lochman, J. E,Harnish, J. D,Bates, J. D.(1997).Reactive and proactive aggression in school children and psychiatrically impaired chronically assaultive youth.Journal of Abnormal Psychology,106,37-51.
15. Dodge, K. A,Pettit G. S,McClaskey, C. L,BrownM. M(1986).Social competence in children.Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development,51,1-85.
16. Dodge, K. A,Price, J. M(1994).On the relation between social information processing and socially competent behavior in early school-aged children.Child Development,65,1383-1397.
17. Fabes, R. A,Eisenberg, N,Smith, M. C,Murphy, B. C(1996).Getting angry at peers: Associations with liking of the provocateur.Child Development,67,942-956.
18. Finnegan, R. A,Hodges, E. V. E,Perry, D. G(1998).Victimization by peer: associations with children`s reports of mother-child interaction.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,75,1076-1086.
19. Frick, P. J,Cornell, A. H,Bodin, S. D,Dane, H. E,Barry, C. T,Loney, B. R.(2003).Callousunemotional traits and developmental pathways to severe conduct problems.Developmental Psychology,39,246-260.
20. Gottman, J. M,Gottman, J. M,Parker, F. G. (Eds)(1986).Conversations of friends: Speculations on affective development.New York:Cambridge University Press.
21. Graham, S,Juvonen, J(1998).Self-blame and peer victimization in middle school: An attributional analysis.Developmental Psychology,34,587-538.
22. Kimonis, E. R,Frick, P. J,Boris, N. W,Smyke, A. T,Cornell, A. H,Farrell, J. M(2006).Callousunemotional features, behavioral inhibition, and parenting: Independent predictors of aggression in a high-risk preschool sample.Journal of Child and Family Studies,15,745-756.
23. Lee, M-C,Lay, K.-L,Chair(1999).Reconsideration of the Effects of Teachers and Parents Verbal Comments and Disciplines: Findings from a Chinese Population.Albuquerque, NM, USA:Symposium conducted at the Biennial Convention of the Society for Research in Child Development.
24. Mahady W,Melissa M,Craig, W. M,Pepler, D.J(2000).Emotional regulation and display in classroom victims of bullying: Characteristic expressions of affect, coping styles and relevant contextual factors.Social Development,9,226-245.
25. Pellegrini, A. D,Bartini, M,Brooks, F(1999).School bullies, victims, and aggressive victims: Factors relating to group affiliation and victimization in early adolescence.Journal of Educational Psychology,91,216-224.
26. Poulin, F,Boivin, M.(2000).The role of proactive and reactive aggression in the formation and development of boys friendships.Developmental Psychology,36,233-240.
27. Schwartz, D,Chang L,Farver, J. M(2001).Correlates of victimization in Chinese children`s peer groups.Developmental Psychology,37,520-532.
28. Selman, R. L(1980).The growth of interpersonal understanding.Orlando:FL: Academic Press.
29. Selman, R. L,Byrne, D. F(1974).A structuraldevelopmental analysis of levels of role taking in middle childhood.Child Development,45,803-806.
30. Underwood M. K,Coie, J. D,Herbsman, C. R(1992).Display rules of anger and aggression in school-age children.Child Development,63,366-380.
31. Underwood, M. K,Hurley, J. C,Johanson, C. A,Mos l ey, J. E(1999).An experimental, observational investigation of children`s responses to peer provocation: Developmental and gender differences in middle childhood.Child Development,70,1428-426.
32. Underwood, M. K,Schockner, A. E,Hurley, J. C(2001).Children`s responses to same- and other-gender peers: An experimental investigation with 8-, 10-, and 12-year-olds.Developmental Psychology,37,362-372.
33. Whitesell, N. R,Harter, S(1996).The interpersonal context of emotion: Anger with close friends and classmates.Child Development,67,1345-1356.
34. Zakriski, A. L,Coie, J. D(1996).A comparison of aggressive-rejected and nonaggressive-rejected children`s interpretations of self-directed and other-directed rejection.Child Development,67,1048-1070.
35. Zeman, J,Shipman, K.(1996).Children`s expression of negative affect: Reasons and methods.Developmental Psychology,32,842-849.
36. 洪儷瑜、涂春仁(1996)。Coie & Dodge 社會計量地位分類公式之修正。測驗年刊，43，103-114。

1. 賴念華(2013)。臺灣心理劇文獻回顧1968-2011：看心理劇的發展與轉變。中華輔導與諮商學報，36，33-66。